Bachmann

[likwid]

C'mon Jim, even YOU have to admit she's batsh*t.

[Nebe]

McCarthyism at its finest
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

C'mon Jim, even YOU have to admit she's batsh*t.

If she made this claim with zero evidence, she should be ashamed and villified. It's just as bad as liberals playing the race card...

I agree with Bachman on the major issues, but I've always thought she was a little kooky. This validates that.

Likwid, there are plenty of Democrats I admire, and plenty of Republicans I don't like. I'm not brainwashed. I can give you reasonable, common sense-based reasons for everything I believe.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If she made this claim with zero evidence, she should be ashamed and villified.

Well lets look at just Huma Abedin (who just happens to be married to a jew).
Her father taught at a school in Saudi Arabia 25 years ago.
He knew a dude back then, who was part of a muslim alliance group (not the brotherhood).
They MAY have agreed/aligned itself with the Muslim Brotherhood on UNKNOWN issues.

Thats the connection.
SEEMS SOLID TO ME!

So like this guy, he told me about this stuff that this other guy did, and it caused this other guy to be all like "OMG" and like totally caused 9/11.
Like fer shuuuur.

Not only batsh*t.
But an attention whore.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If she made this claim with zero evidence, she should be ashamed and villified.

Republicans line up to rip Michele Bachmann - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

[JohnnyD]

[Nebe]

^ LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Raven]

i wanna see her nekid still

[scottw]

you should read this....

Questions about Huma Abedin - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online

"Now, I’m perfectly willing to believe that McCain may not know what the words “unspecified” and “unsubstantiated” mean. That, however, would not excuse his use of them in this context. The ties of Ms. Abedine’s father, mother, and brother to the Muslim Brotherhood are both specific and substantiated."

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

you should read this....

Questions about Huma Abedin - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online

"Now, I’m perfectly willing to believe that McCain may not know what the words “unspecified” and “unsubstantiated” mean. That, however, would not excuse his use of them in this context. The ties of Ms. Abedine’s father, mother, and brother to the Muslim Brotherhood are both specific and substantiated."

Why would anyone want to read a slob site op-ed that has about as much relevance in reality as Bachmann's hysterical accusations?

I browsed through and tried to read the psycho ties he tries to create via, yet again, unsubstantiated claims.
Such as claiming the institute her father was part of was backed by a group that had brotherhood members in it. Yet again, 20 years ago.

His whole theory DEEPLY relies on the common reader being basically ignorant to the history of the Muslim Brotherhood.

But yet again, no name op ed on a no name website.
Crack dealers on Staten Island have more relevance.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You can see in her eyes that something is off.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by likwid

Why would anyone want to read a slob site op-ed that has about as much relevance in reality as Bachmann's hysterical accusations?

But yet again, no name op ed on a no name website.
Crack dealers on Staten Island have more relevance.

he's actually quite versed on the subject, has written extensively on these matters and has first hand experience...just sayin'...I wouldn't expect that you'd have a clue or a coherent comment

Andrew C. McCarthy III is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks.[1] He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003. He is currently a columnist for National Review.

McCarthy was educated at Columbia University and New York Law School, and has served as a professor at the latter and at Fordham University Law School.

He is currently a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, serving as the director of the FDD's Center for Law and Counterterrorism. He has served as an attorney for Rudy Giuliani, and is also a conservative opinion columnist who writes for National Review and Commentary.

[scottw]

I think there are some members of Congress that are wondering about the realtionship of this administration and the Muslim Brotherhood, not an unreasonable concern...

Napolitano was on the Hill recently being questioned and this is how it went.....
you can watch the video

The man in question is Mohamed Elibiary, appointed by President Obama and allegedly affiliated with the Islamic Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt.

Napolitano called the allegations against him “misleading” and “objectionable” and implied multiple times that Gohmert and others were accusing Elibiary of wrongdoing simply because he is Muslim.

Gohmert told Napolitano that her staff was apparently lying to her because an investigation found that Elibiary had accessed classified information and had downloaded it. The only thing that wasn’t “confirmed” was that he leaked the information to the press.

“It did not bother you that he accessed information?” Gohmert asked.

The secretary then altered her answer slightly but quickly changed the subject. “He accessed some information. What bothers me quite frankly, are the allegations that are made against anyone that happens to be Muslim,” Napolitano replied.

“Well, the allegations are not because he is Muslim. ”This administration seems to have a hard time recognizing members of terrorist groups who are allowed into the White House. You are aware of that happening aren’t you?”

Napolitano immediately shot back, “Absolutely not.”

Last month, Hani Nour Eldin, a member of Egypt’s parliament, was granted a visa and invited to attend several meetings with high-ranking White House and State Department officials, some in the executive mansion. Eldin is also a member of Gamaa Islamiya, a radical Islamic group currently listed as a designated terrorist organization.

For the next several minutes, Gohmert pressed Napolitano on whether she knew what the Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt was. After initially dodging the question, she answered “Yes.”

“Are you aware that Mr. Elibiary’s foundation that has now been, had their charter pulled because they have failed to provide the information that the government requires to keep their 501(c)(3) status — are you aware that that was, before the 501 (c)(3) status was pulled, called the Freedom and Justice Foundation?” asked Gohmert.

“Representative, I am not going to get into a debate about some of this — ” Napolitano started.

“I am asking you if you know simple facts!” Gohmert replied. “I don’t want a debate, this is a question and answer.”

The Freedom and Justice Party is an Islamist political party in Egypt with ties to the radical Muslim Brotherhood. The party won 47.2 percent of all seats in Egypt’s lower house of parliament and praised the election of Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Mursi.

Napolitano absolutely refused to answer the question and was interrupted repeatedly by Gohmert because of her inability to give a straight answer.

“These kinds of insinuations demean the committee,” a frustrated Napolitano said. “The insinuation that I or my staff would allow someone who is a terrorist to infiltrate –”




so the moral of the story is that this administration does not have to provide answers to simple questions and even if the answer is "yes", you are wrong for asking the question because you are by default a hater and simply asking the questions relegates you to the status of 'demeaning insuator" this is great

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others.

The most open and shut case in the history of NY law makes him an expert? Are you kidding me?
A 12yo could have tried that trial and won.

Did you know that al-Qaeda hates the hell out of the Muslim Brotherhood for supporting democratic elections?

No, most likely not.
That would require you to go beyond posting op-eds that have zero relevance. And this kooks splooge on a scam site (if he's so important, why isn't he on fox et al?) made you all doe eyed huh?

[scottw]

there seems to be a clear pattern of nastiness among the open-minded, tolerant compassionates lately

lending support for Jim's theory

[scottw]

[QUOTE=likwid;949744].
Did you know that al-Qaeda hates the hell out of the Muslim Brotherhood for supporting democratic elections?
No, most likely not.
QUOTE]




i guess the feelings are not all mutual

June 24, 2012

CAIRO — Egypt’s military rulers on Sunday officially recognized Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood as the winner of Egypt’s first competitive presidential election, handing the Islamists both a symbolic triumph and a potent weapon in their struggle for power against the country’s top generals.

............................

MIDDLE EAST NEWS

June 29, 2012

Morsi Promises to Free 'Blind Sheik' from U.S. Prison
Promises to Free 'Blind Sheik' from U.S. Prison

BY MATT BRADLEY

Egypt's President-elect Mohammed Morsi made a nod to his base in a speech on Friday when he pledged to seek the release of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman from U.S. custody.

Sheik Abdel-Rahman, who is better known as the "blind sheik" is serving a life sentence at a federal penitentiary in North Carolina for his role in planning the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City.

[detbuch]

So far Scottw has calmly provided information from credible sources, and
likwid has spewed vulgarities (batsh*t, attention whore, slob site, splooge on a scam site) as retorts. And likwid claims Scott's information has no relevance to reality or is less relevant than crack dealers on Staten Island. I don't know what relevance (to anything) likwid's comments have. They seem to be spouts of anger which Paul S might take notice of and comment on. On the face of it, an objective observer would have to conclude that Scottw has the better of the argument, but, something else is going on here other than rational argument on likwid's part. So then an objective evaluation might not be relevant, at least not as relevant as a crack dealer on some island.

[scottw]

yeah, I'm not sure if that gets him put on the Zimmy, Pauls, Spence "ignore list" .......or if it gets him a lifetime membership in the Zimmy,PaulS, Spence private intellectual society....pretty funny either way

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

yeah, I'm not sure if that gets him put on the Zimmy, Pauls, Spence "ignore list" .......or if it gets him a lifetime membership in the Zimmy,PaulS, Spence private intellectual society....pretty funny either way

I would not put Spence in that group. I doubt if he has an ignore list. He genuinely seems to be interested in ideas, though I think he should widen his sources of information to get more of the balance he professes to desire. The really good thing about Spence is his willingness to debate ideas in a rational way. Sure, he has his moments of sarcasm (maybe more than I like, but that's just me), but for the most part he's not merely a flame thrower. I often am disappointed that he will suddenly drop out of a conversation when it seems, to me, that it is reaching a point of enlightenment. But, though he can be annoying (as I'm sure I am to him) in his persistently obstinate progressive views, I miss, lately, his absence in the recent threads. Sounds like he's too busy right now to mess with this stuff. That's a good thing, but not necessarily for the forum. Back and forth discussions with him can shed light and clarify issues and philosophies for those listening in.

[Swimmer]

Hey if she was still with Turner and Overdrive I vote for her.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I would not put Spence in that group. I doubt if he has an ignore list. He genuinely seems to be interested in ideas, though I think he should widen his sources of information to get more of the balance he professes to desire. The really good thing about Spence is his willingness to debate ideas in a rational way.

I agree and thought the same thing when including him but I think Zimmy very much wanted him involved in his "think tank"...I anticipated a "hey, don't lump me in with them" protest post from him....hopefully he's very busy trying to keep the dow near 13,000 so that his hero has something to run on

[PaulS]

The Repubs. have a long history of this. I bet she has West on her speed dial. Another good one is to claim someone hates the Constituion. As someone mentioned, McCarthyism as its best. Other than John M., I haven't heard any Rs denouncing her. It prob. helped out the re-elect. bank acct.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Other than John M., I haven't heard any Rs denouncing her. .

if you read the whole thread you wouldn't make such ridiculous statements

Republicans line up to rip Michele Bachmann - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com


"Senators in her own party, congressional candidates, a lawmaker in her state’s delegation and leaders of the House Republican Conference are all lambasting the Minnesota Republican for saying the wife of former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood."

[PaulS]

Glad to hear that Scott. Everyone should call out insane comments (from both sides).

PS - Glad you think I'm so intellectual . I actually don't have anyone on my ignore list. Never said I did. It is just the interweb, who cares?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Glad to hear that Scott. Everyone should call out insane comments (from both sides).

PS - Glad you think I'm so intellectual . I actually don't have anyone on my ignore list. Never said I did. It is just the interweb, who cares?

not only intellectual, but I'm sure quite handsome and great fun to hang out with

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

there seems to be a clear pattern of nastiness among the open-minded, tolerant compassionates lately

lending support for Jim's theory

It's not a "theory", no more than gravity is a "theory".

Scott, i sthat a true conversation you posted between Napolitano and a congressman? Nah, she's not in over her head...

[scottw]

Clip: Homeland Security Oversight - C-SPAN Video Library

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Glad to hear that Scott. Everyone should call out insane comments (from both sides).

PS - Glad you think I'm so intellectual . I actually don't have anyone on my ignore list. Never said I did. It is just the interweb, who cares?

Paul's post convinced me to clear my ignore list. Hopefully, I can limit my time responding to the checkmates and getting called a twelve year old.

So, whether it is Netwons', Einstein's, or Galileo's theory of gravity, gravity is theoretical.You can read more about current theories of gravity at Theory of Gravity

I also like this one from
Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" by Ellery Schempp
"Warning: Gravity is “Only a Theory”
by Ellery Schempp

All physics textbooks should include this warning label:

“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” ."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The Repubs. have a long history of this. I bet she has West on her speed dial. Another good one is to claim someone hates the Constituion. As someone mentioned, McCarthyism as its best. Other than John M., I haven't heard any Rs denouncing her. It prob. helped out the re-elect. bank acct.

....

something tells me Paul that if Jim had made a generalized statement like this you'd have suggested that he is full of hate and out of line for suggesting that a party or certain people had a long history of anything in addition to the other suggestions.....we can make a list if you'd like, of insulting, offensive claims or things that were construed as offensive by members of congress from both sides and compare the reaction of their fellow congress people and it might paint a far different picture than what you've suggested. as for McCarthyism, while it's an easy word for some to remember and toss about(an endless supply of ism's) whenever it is convenient, it's little more than one of the many pejoratives that some keep close at hand and throw out in self satisfied fashion not understanding that they actually have little relevance .....but I guess it sounds good ...if you know anything about FDRism or Woodrow Wilsonism, Mccarthyism might seem tame in comparison

it seems awfully easy for some to simply dismiss anything that disagrees with their own world view and also deride others for behaviour that they find deplorable but yet justify their own similar behaviour as long as it was apparently prompted by others....it's an odd standard but one that we've come to expect

did you know that Mccarthy(ism) was more popular that Obamacare?

In January 1954, a Gallup poll found that 50% of the American public supported McCarthy, while 29% had an unfavorable opinion of the senator.

and it was a bi partisam effort


The overwhelming support provided by the liberals has attracted much attention from historians such as Mary McAuliffe (The Journal of American History). McAuliffe argues that, despite the liberals’ traditional role as the protectors of fundamental rights and civil liberties, the perceived gravity of the threat of Communism during the Cold War led some liberals to ignore the fact that the CCA suspended the citizenship rights of the Communist Party members. Most liberals did not even offer a token opposition to the Act; on the contrary, they ardently supported it.

The Communist Control Act of 1954 was passed with overwhelming support in both houses of Congress after very little debate. Jointly drafted by Republican John Marshall Butler and Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the law was an extension of the Internal Security Act of 1950, and sought to outlaw the Communist Party by declaring that the party, as well as "Communist-Infiltrated Organizations" were "not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies.

The House Committee on Un-American Activities - commonly referred to as the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) - was the most prominent and active government committee involved in anti-Communist investigations. Formed in 1938 and known as the Dies Committee for Rep. Martin Dies(democrat)

The SISS was headed by Democrat Pat McCarran and gained a reputation for careful and extensive investigations. This committee spent a year investigating Owen Lattimore and other members of the Institute of Pacific Relations. As had been done numerous times before, the collection of scholars and diplomats associated with Lattimore (the so-called China Hands) were accused of "losing China," and while some evidence of pro-communist attitudes was found, there was nothing to support McCarran's accusation that Lattimore was "a conscious and articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy".

On June 1, 1950, Senator Margaret Chase Smith, a Maine Republican, delivered a speech to the Senate she called a "Declaration of Conscience". In a clear attack upon McCarthyism, she called for an end to "character assassinations" and named "some of the basic principles of Americanism: The right to criticize; The right to hold unpopular beliefs; The right to protest; The right of independent thought". She said "freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America", and decried "cancerous tentacles of 'know nothing, suspect everything' attitudes".[80] Six other Republican Senators—Wayne Morse, Irving M. Ives, Charles W. Tobey, Edward John Thye, George Aiken, and Robert C. Hendrickson—joined Smith in condemning the tactics of McCarthyism.


there's an important lesson here with regard to the various legislation that was passed which empowered the government to have the expanded power to commit what some consider atrocities....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The Repubs. have a long history of this. I bet she has West on her speed dial. Another good one is to claim someone hates the Constituion. As someone mentioned, McCarthyism as its best. Other than John M., I haven't heard any Rs denouncing her. It prob. helped out the re-elect. bank acct.

"The Repubs. have a long history of this"

Wow. I mean, wow.

Paul, time and time again, you criticize me for taking the actions of one or two liberals, and blaming all liberals for that. Please tell me how that's any fifferent from what you've done here.

"Other than John M., I haven't heard any Rs denouncing her. "

Then you need to stop getting all of your information from radical liberal sources. Hordes of Republicans have denounced her. And I'm proud of those Republicans, good for them.

When Democratic congressman Alan Grayson of Florida said that Republicans wanted sick people to die, how many Democrats spoke out against him?